DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 11 June 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following informalities:
There appears to be a Chinese patent application pending as well. Though not required since the Japanese filing has the oldest date, it is ordinary and customary to include the filing dates of all related patent applications as well as their publication dates (if available).
The title is not descriptive. Examiner suggests Level-Shifted Voltage Follower in order to bring it in line with the majority of claimed subject matter.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 27 December 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua (US 20120161733) in view of Wan (US 20140084999).
As to claim 1, Hua discloses (see image with item matching below) a power supply device comprising: an input terminal configured to receive an input voltage; an output terminal configured to have an output voltage applied thereto; a power terminal configured to receive a supply voltage; an output transistor provided between the power terminal and the output terminal; a level shifter (124) configured to
PNG
media_image1.png
728
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Though he does teach a level shifter (124), he does not explicitly disclose a level shifter configured to generate two comparison voltages by shifting levels of the input voltage and the output voltage.
Wan teaches a level shifter configured to generate two comparison voltages by shifting levels of the input voltage and the output voltage (Fig. 7, 206, 208, 210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use levelshifitng input and output as disclosed in Wan to reduce common mode noise.
As to claim 2, Hua in view of Wan teaches wherein the level shifter includes a current mirror circuit and generates the two comparison voltages from the input voltage and the output voltage by use of the current mirror circuit (Wan, Fig. 14C, 15A-15D).
As to claim 3, Hua in view of Wan teaches wherein the level shifter generates two currents corresponding to the input voltage and the output voltage by use of the current mirror circuit and, by converting the two currents into voltages, generates the two comparison voltages (Wan 16A-16D).
As to claim 11, Hua in view of Wan teaches wherein the power supply device is a voltage tracker, and the state of the output transistor is controlled based on the magnitude relationship between the two comparison voltages so as to reduce a difference between the output voltage and the input voltage (see image above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein the current mirror circuit includes a first transistor, a second transistor, and a third transistor having control terminals thereof connected together and, in accordance with a reference current passing through one of the first, second, and third transistors, generates as the two currents a first mirror current and a second mirror current in the other two transistors.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Crystal Hammond can be reached on 571-270-1682. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839